It's not the miles, but the elevation

[petek]

It also depends on the area of where you live.

Some people like @nickyboy have no choice but to do rides based on elevation rather then distance. Others in the east of the country have very little on the way of climbing. Luckily in the SE we have a nice mix of the two.

Where are you based @amandasmile ?

+1
Very flat round these parts but we do have some short and steep 'pullovers' onto the sea defence wall and a couple of hills. I don't do much by way of mileage either, maybe 7 to 10 miles most days. BUT one thing I have noticed about what bit of climbing I tackle. Some slopes I had to get off and push with my old three speed bike. Since getting this five speed bike, I don't need to get off. Five speed first gear seems lower and kinder than was the first gear on the three speed.

 

[Threevok]

Typical sort of outing for me - 4,000ft (ish) elevation in 53 miles

https://www.strava.com/activities/395386918

 

[si_c]

I live in a very flat area of the country. Some of the local loops are ridiculously flat. If I'm doing a century ride, I'll usually head into North Wales though, which gets significantly hillier very quickly. But I plan rides around distance rather than climbing, I'd rather plan to get somewhere, and then deal with the elevation as it comes.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I plan for distance but look for climbing if the conditions are good. Devon offers huge variety, day to day. I can get as much as 1700m in a 100km or as little as 800m. Last year's averages (across UK and abroad, not just Devon) were 135km long and 1524m of climb (I don't do short rides).

When planning, how much climb is equivalent to how far? My rule of thumb is that 40m more climb on a route will take the same amount longer as if the route is 1km longer (for imperialists: an extra 200ft roughly the same as an extra mile (round figures)). I would be interested to hear what others' take is on this, nevertheless appreciating that the extra climb will cost strong climbers less and that the differential also depends on the quality of the associated/implicit descent on the hillier route.

 

[rugby bloke]

I always plan on distance - the countryside around me is fairly uniformly rolling so the climbing will be pretty much the same whatever route I take. I find the wind is as much as a factor. Any ride with a long drag into headwind is going to be hard work on my wobbly legs.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I decided that there was no forumula that fitted my data.

Except Cycle Chat, of course!

 

[Welsh wheels]

So when people start cycling, they tend to get all excited about the century mark, i was no different but i've realized that i no longer plan my cycling activities around the number of miles i do , but how many feet i climb and what climbs i feel like attacking that day. That and what scenery will turn me on.

Wondering how many of you focus more on altitude versus distance.

I will be focusing more on elevation than miles over the winter, as weather and light will limit my riding time.

 

[Sea of vapours]

[QUOTE 5005690, member: 9609"]If it wasn't for hills I doubt I would ride a bike,[/QUOTE]

I entirely agree with that. That's not to say that I choose routes based solely on elevation though - it's too variable in aspects like density, consistency of gradient and the nature of the downhill bits.

Similarly, I don't really think there's a relaible equivalent of Naismith's rule for cycling. Such a rule would have to be way more complex than even the versions of Naismith which factor in terrain, load, weather and fitness. I have just considered two routes of approximately 60km each from my house, each being about the same elevation gain of just under one thousand metres. Time-wise - and I just checked this on my records of each loop - they vary by 10-20%, with the one which includes short, steep bits being slower than the one with consistent gradients (a double effect since whilst I do go down 4% gradients at 60kph+, I go down 20%+ gradients very slowly indeed).

So yes, I find elevation far more interesting in all respects, but I still plan routes initially on distance and then consider whether it's: less than a thousand metres of up per 100km ('flat'); 1,000-2,000m up per 100km ('normal)'; or over 2,000m up per 100km ('distressingly hilly').

It's also interesting how perspective makes a huge difference. I'm pretty sure someone said above that they head to the Ribble Valley when they want 'hilly', whereas I actively consider the Ribble Valley the only area to head to from here to create a 'flat' route.

 

[Pale Rider]

I, I go down 20%+ gradients very slowly indeed).

Not as slowly as me.

I reckon almost anyone can rattle along at a good pace on the flat on a lightweight road bike, that must be true because I can.

But any sort of gradient on a push bike wipes me out.

So in terms of fitness, it's certainly the elevation not the miles that count.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...

 

[Threevok]

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...

Indeed. I always go out for a period of time (for as long as I am allow out - that is). Distance and elevation are more of a biproduct

 

[Aravis]

Just a theory really, possibly relevant to a several comments that have been made. I think that most cyclists probably have a optimal climbing ratio, enough to keep the legs and mind interested; any flatter and the ride starts to become more difficult for reasons other than climbing content.

I'm not going to say where I think my threshold is; suffice to say I don't hit 1000m in every 100km very often. I didn't say never!

A very good thread though. It's suggested a number of ways in which challenges could be made more interesting.

 

[Jody]

Elevation always trumps mileage for me. 20 miles off road in the peak district at 5mph average with 3,000+ft of climbing tires me out a lot more than the 100 mile run we did to the coast through Lincolnshire at 17mph+ average.

 

[Low Gear Guy]

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...

I normally sneak out of the house muttering I'll only be a couple of hours honestly'.

 

[mjr]

I reckon almost anyone can rattle along at a good pace on the flat on a lightweight road bike, that must be true because I can.

But any sort of gradient on a push bike wipes me out.

So in terms of fitness, it's certainly the elevation not the miles that count.

I'm not sure of that. I can climb OK (more easily on the road bike or hybrid with lower gears than the folder or roadsters, of course) but my flat pace is pretty poor, especially if the surface is at all rough... and so I moved from the Mendips to the fens oh well, it's good to do what challenges you, isn't it?